Should testing on animals be banned?

[Forumosaurus 10]

I heard some startling statistics regarding testing on animals. Do you know they are now really good at curing cancer in mice? That alone tells me we don't benefit from animal testing as much as we like to think we do.

 

Aye I just listened to two pieces on radio 4 about it and...I can't be bothered to look back at exactly what it said but, it said something like...we test more on animals now than we ever have, and we get fewer treatments from it.

 

Something like that.

 

So what though, if a hundred thousand mice have to be tested on for a few human lives to be saved I have no issue with it.

[melthebell 863]

it was debated on radio 2 today, they had a scientist on who argued very sincerely that no we no longer need to carry on doing it, it does more harm than good, theres about a 95% failure rate going from the animal side to the human side of testing and he listed 5 or 6 more upto date techniques which he says are a lot safer, humane and upto date.

most of the callers who called in who were in favour of animal testing seemed to be living in the past, bringing up drug successes from 30/40/50 years ago such as penecillin and insulin. forgetting one vital thing......back then we had no choice, these days weve advanced with technology so much there now is plenty of viable alternatives rathert han just doing it because weve always done it.

[melthebell 863]

So what though, if a hundred thousand mice have to be tested on for a few human lives to be saved I have no issue with it.

the thing is.......mice and us are completely different, what works on mice doesnt work on us

theres reasons why certain animals are used in certain experiments and its got nothing to do with how close to human anatomy and physiology they are

[Tony Erikson 10]

it was debated on radio 2 today, they had a scientist on who argued very sincerely that no we no longer need to carry on doing it, it does more harm than good, theres about a 95% failure rate going from the animal side to the human side of testing and he listed 5 or 6 more upto date techniques which he says are a lot safer, humane and upto date.

most of the callers who called in who were in favour of animal testing seemed to be living in the past, bringing up drug successes from 30/40/50 years ago such as penecillin and insulin. forgetting one vital thing......back then we had no choice, these days weve advanced with technology so much there now is plenty of viable alternatives rathert han just doing it because weve always done it.

 

Except legally we have to.

[melthebell 863]

Except legally we have to.

but thats the subject of the thread innit?, should animal testing be banned?

 

in other words it wouldnt be a legal requirement to do it

[Tony Erikson 10]

but thats the subject of the thread innit?, should animal testing be banned?

 

in other words it wouldnt be a legal requirement to do it

 

I was replying to the bit you put. I'm aware of the thread title and have commented on that also.

 

It could still be a legal requirement. The requirement could state "No drugs to be used on humans unless trialled on animals first". We could ban the practice but whilst that law applies, anyone taking a drug can be certain it will have been tested on an animal. I get your point but it's a matter of the law.

[melthebell 863]

I was replying to the bit you put. I'm aware of the thread title and have commented on that also.

 

It could still be a legal requirement. The requirement could state "No drugs to be used on humans unless trialled on animals first". We could ban the practice but whilst that law applies, anyone taking a drug can be certain it will have been tested on an animal. I get your point but it's a matter of the law.

 

the things the scientist was saying tho was testing on "grown" human organs, skin tissue, dna etc etc before full human testing, without any animal testing involvement

[LeMaquis 10]

Thalidomide was tested on animals for years. It was also tested on disabled children without their parents being informed. Despite that it was still marketed as being a safe drug because the impact it had on foetuses hadn't been though of.

[Tony Erikson 10]

the things the scientist was saying tho was testing on "grown" human organs, skin tissue, dna etc etc before full human testing, without any animal testing involvement

 

That's my point. It doesn't matter how many tests we do that don't hurt animals. The law states that the drug can't be used in practice unless animal tested.

[Rich 12]

I think it should be banned. but I know that animal rights activists have been ranting and raving for years about it being banned and they haven't had any success, so for the time being at least, it will be legal, shouldn't be IMO, but that's life.

[melthebell 863]

That's my point. It doesn't matter how many tests we do that don't hurt animals. The law states that the drug can't be used in practice unless animal tested.

i know, im saying IF animal testing was banned then obviously that law would have to be changed as you cant enshrine in law that people must do something that is banned.

im not up on these 5 or so modern techniques that this scientist reeled off or knowing how safe / dangerous or feasible in reality they are, obviously that all needs looking into, whether they are of a similer nature to testing on animals pre human testing or not

i do think they do need to be checked out a little more than just blindly saying yes we must keep animal testing full stop

maybe their could be a transition period if they are viable, where animal testing slowly gets phased out AND the law gets changed as well

[Muldoon 10]

I think it should be banned. but I know that animal rights activists have been ranting and raving for years about it being banned and they haven't had any success, so for the time being at least, it will be legal, shouldn't be IMO, but that's life.

 

Perhaps you should look into the good that it has done for sufferers of ailments that have been cured or at least made bearable by drugs testing on animals before jumping in at the deep end Rich ? Meh !

You dont see do you ?